"Were the Hessians really Mercenaries?" Topic

"There are many myths regarding the revolutionary war, but none seem as hard to eradicate as the idea that the "Hessians" were "mercenaries". Today's post isn't for the fully initiated: if you are familiar with the story of the German Subsidientruppen in the American War of Independence, there might be some new material for you. By and large, however, this post is aimed at those who are unfamiliar with the story of these German-speaking soldiers, and why they made the decision to travel to America.

For those of you who don't know me, I'm an academic historian writing on transnational military culture in the Atlantic World in the Eighteenth Century. I wrote my masters thesis on these troops, and then completed my doctoral work, in part, on the related (but not interchangeable) Prussian army. I've published several articles on these German-speaking armies, and am working on more (and a book.) Dr. Friederike Baer's forthcoming book…"

Main page

link

Armand

"Imagine you are a soldier in the United States Army, serving in West Germany during the Cold War. You are stationed there because of longstanding agreements and alliances, which stretch back decades. The United States Government and the West German government have a financial understanding that helps maintain your presence in the region. Are you a mercenary?"

A clear, brief set of notes.

In any case, serving as a mercenary was not regarded with the same distaste as it is today. It was not uncommon for young men to serve as officers in foreign armies when their own countries were not at war to improve their military education.
When the Maratha War was about to break out, English officers in Maratha service contacted General Wellesley to see whether they would be welcome to join King's or HEIC service. His reply was that they must fulfil their contractual obligations first, before leaving the Marathas to join the British.
Calling the Hessians 'mercenaries' was just rebel propaganda.
Personally, I have no problem with a mercenary provided that he 1. does not commit treason by fighting against his own country and 2. serves his employer loyally and honours his contract. Other than the fact he is soldiering, he is no different from many professional sports players who change teams and even countries for their own financial benefit, or anyone who will sell his services to different employers.

Their kings may have been mercenary but the troops were not.

This perennially shows up on those "things that you were taught that aren't true" lists. I've been told they were not mercenaries far more times than I was actually taught they were.

I wonder if there's some sort of economy going on here. The textbook writers deliberately put in some gross oversimplifications and barely justifiable mischaracterizations knowing everyone will see them because everyone goes to school, then turn around and write the "myths about X" articles and videos that we're waist deep in. How many people would be out of work if the "history books" explained things properly the first time?

It's the information equivalent of Christmas. We try to surprise each other at Christmas, resulting in some misses – gifts that took time and material to produce but which are not used/appreciated/consumed, so they're essentially wasted. But it you did away with this waste we would need fewer consumer goods produced, since they would be used more efficiently, and the people who make and transport those things would be thus unemployed.

Solving Christmas is easy. If we got better at gift-giving (should be hard in the Information Age) there would be less wasted production, and more production could be dedicated to stuff we actually want. Maybe not need, but at least it wouldn't be waste. We could all have more stuff. But if we quit producing misinformation and were all taught the truth about the witch trials or Thanksgiving or the Alamo, what would the dis-employed debunkers do? Produce more information? Our appetite for correct information is not as great as our appetite for more stuff. Debunking is catchy, it gets clicked. "More facts about the American revolution that you don't know because they aren't as important or interesting as what you already know" is not very click-worthy.

Maybe I shouldn't post on Monday mornings, I think I'm particularly cranky then.

Most of the troops may not have had much say or reaped the profit. In my book they are not mercenaries.

Lots of myths always

Though referring to them as a whole – they were hired troops or a hired army – not hired individual soldiers

On soldiers that settled in North America – 75% – 80% went home – or 20 – 25% stayed

link

"Baer says that of the 30,000 German troops dispatched to the colonies, roughly a quarter of them, or 7,500, died. Only around 1,200 German soldiers died in combat. Disease was the most ruthless killer.

Of the 23,000 German soldiers who survived the war, the vast majority shipped back to their home provinces, but between 5,000 and 6,000 Hessians decided to stay. A lot of them settled in British-ruled Canada, but others were welcomed by German American communities in the Mid-Atlantic states."

Calling them Hessians – this actually makes a lot of sense. As a general rule it was the Hessian troops that the British used in combat. Except for the Saratoga campaign, from memory those were Brunswickers, most of the other Germans were used for garrison duty. So, using 'Hessian' as short hand for Germans in the AWI makes sense.

Calling them mercenaries – In the 19th century American mind, anyone who fought for pay was a mercenary. So the idea the Hessians were mercenaries made sense then. The meaning of words changes with time.

Their princes were greedy – Well…since they were paid per man sent they did everything they could to bring their units up to strength. Jails were emptied, garrison units gutted, etc.

They committed crimes – They looked on the AWI as a revolt by the Americans against their rightful lord and often treated the Americans as peasants in revolt deserving of no quarter. I love the author's own quote on this "Hessian troops committed crimes in America, there is no doubt. What is clear is that these crimes were not excessive for an eighteenth-century conflict. " Talk about damning with faint praise.

Thanks.

Armand

+ Andrew Walters

<q.Like all or most soldiers in that era, they were dragooned into "enlisting".
Scum of the Earth and all that.

Cue next debunking article

To generalize them as Hessians is inaccurate. They are from several German principalities. The soldiers were not paid by Britain. Britain paid their Princes for their services. A large number of them remained and settled in America after the war. In my games I refer to them by the nation state they came from or as German troops.

They came from:

Hessen-Kassel
Hessen-Hanau
Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel ("Brunswick")
Ansbach-Bayreuth
Waldeck
Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg ("Hanover")
Anhalt-Zerbs

"The majority of these troops remained loyal to their princes, and returned home to their own native lands…see Daniel Krebs' book, A Generous and Merciful Enemy."

(it says here)

The problem with most of these debates is that we are looking backwards, applying our own standards and our current level of knowledge. From the standpoint of the American rebels in 1776 things looked much different.

"Hessians" is accurate because it is the term the American rebels of 1776 chose to apply to the troops hired by Britain from the German states. It also makes sense. While the contract with Hesse Cassel was signed shortly after the contract with Brunswick, Hesse Cassel was providing a much larger contingent of troops. Also the Brunswick contingent was sent to Canada, making the contingent from Hesse Cassel the more immediate threat. The other states came in later.

The reason "German" wasn't used was probably in part political. A large number of those living in the North American colonies were either German born of of recent German ancestry.

As for mercenaries, it did not seem to bother the American rebels much when French forces showed up with Irish and German regiments.

OC, most of us on this side don't count Hanover because they did not send regiments to fight in North America.

@Bill N

when French forces showed up with Irish and German regiments.

Good point, not often made.

Did France pay the German Kings to use them in their service, just curious?

I assume the Irish signed up, just for a job and a chance to kill English. So since they were part of the French army and not hired directly by the Colonists, it would not be the same thing as the English, directly bringing the Germans in to fight for them. For it to be the same, it would have had to be another power coming in as Allies to the English, with foreigners in their army. Say Russians, with Irish units.

Also I assume the Irish and probably the Germans, were volunteers and Hessians, Brunswickers, etc., were conscripted by their rulers. But I don't know that for sure.

Actually, on reflection, I believe that by the 1770s there weren't many Irishmen left in the ranks of the French army and, as with the Ecossais, the régiments Irlandais were Irish in name only.

I think that is a distinction the Founders did not care about 35. They were playing off stories that would have been known to educated men in the enlightenment of tyrants of old who had to rely on mercenaries to maintain their power.

The French had German speaking troops from their German speaking areas. Fredrick the great, certainly thought it was disgraceful to hire out ones army. On the other hand most of these troops came from German areas that were actually ruled George III or his uncles estates.

Bill N,

Hanoverians were sent to Gibraltar and India which freed up British troops to be used in North America.

Just because the Americans called all Germans Hessians does not make it accurate. They were wrong. There were many ethnic Germans who served in the American armies, the most famous of which was the 8th Maryland Continentals. Would you call them Hessians too?

I would be glad to know the names of all these so-called "Irish and German regiments" of the French Army sent on the soil of the United States that didn't bother the Americans to sustain the comparison with the British AND their numerous allied German States troops – these last ones gathering until a big third of the total serving against the Continentals

even the usual archi-mentionned 'german' Regiment Royal Deux-Ponts : a company of 154 men sent in 1782 had 60% of French soldiers from Alsace…
and as all the others Irish German Regiments they were foreign, on the paper, regiments of the French Army, not regiments coming from the States of the Holy Roman Empire

French Regiments in the American War of Independence
mainly French for those sent to the United States
link

Thanks for the link….

Armand

The statistics I have seen indicate that Lazun's Legion contained only one third French with over 50% of its troops coming from Alsace, Lorraine and the states of the Holy Roman Empire. Its language of command was German.

Alsace until 1789 contained estates of German nobles of the Holy Roman Empire, and also an enclave of the Swiss. The Duke of Zweibrucken owned estates in Alsace. Deux Ponts was supposedly recruited from the Duke's estates. No doubt the Duke was happy to get troops from elsewhere, but that was not unique. One of the Colonels Commanding the regiment during the 7YW was Baron von Closen, from the Pfalz. His son also of German birth joined the regiment and served as one of Rochambeau's aides in America. Not sure about the language of command of Deux Ponts in America.

I doubt founders such as Jefferson would have been any less outraged if George III had opened up recruiting offices in the HRE rather than hiring existing regiments from Brunswick, Hesse Cassel and elsewhere.

even adding the small Légion de Lauzun to Royal Deux Ponts, both belonging to the French Army and rather mixed than fully german/foreigners among many others mainly French regiments, it is still a quite shaky argument to sustain a serious comparison with around 14 000 German soldiers from regiments coming from 6 States of the Holy Roman Empire among the 42 000 military fighting for the British crown against the Continentals in 1781…
Neither the substance nor the form nor the status of both groups with the French and (allied to) the British
well even the Continental Army raised its own foreign German and 1st 2nd Canadian Regiments

The short answer to the question is 'yes.'

The troops were hired to fight in a war not of their making and which did not involve their own countries involvement.